The Political Agitatorresponse: Damn these ignant racist a** guys continue to go after Sheriff Calvin Woodard Jr.’s salary. Hell he said he would support a pay reduction but it ain’t his damn fault the County Commissioners have not chosen to reduce his pay. Hell he is only guaranteed he will be in office 4 years at a time so hell this is his livelihood. Where were these folks who are complaining about his pay when the previous Sheriff (the white man) Wayne Gay was in office? Oh but race ain’t got nothing to do with this. Former white Sheriff now a black Sheriff. I ain’t ignant to the FACT! Thes guys need to sit down and shut the hell up!

RALEIGH, N.C. — Rural Wilson County continues to be home to one of North Carolina’s highest-paid sheriffs, four years after the former sheriff’s salary sparked debate, according to a review by the News & Observer.

The newspaper reports (http://bit.ly/1uU3npV ) that Wilson County exemplifies the disparities caused by leaving sheriffs’ pay up to county commissioners. Across North Carolina’s 100 counties, sheriffs make between $45,000 annually in Clay County and $182,000 in Mecklenburg County, when including salaries and bonuses, according to the paper’s review of state treasurer’s data from 2013.

Wilson County ranks third highest.

In 2010, then-candidate Calvin Woodard Jr. said he’d support a pay reduction if he was elected sheriff. Four years later, the job in a county with less than 82,000 people still pays more than $160,000, and Woodard is seeking a second term. (Source: Read more)

Conceived at a time when pocket-sized recording devices were available only to James Bond types, most eavesdropping laws were originally intended to protect people against snoops, spies, and peeping Toms. Now with this technology in the hands of average citizens, police and prosecutors are abusing these outdated laws to punish citizens merely attempting to document on-duty police.

Thelaw in 38 states plainly allows citizens to record police, as long as you don’t physically interfere with their work. Police might still unfairly harass you, detain you, or confiscate your camera. They might even arrest you for some catchall misdemeanor such as obstruction of justice or disorderly conduct. But you will not be charged for illegally recording police.

Twelve states—California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington—require the consent of all parties for you to record a conversation. But do not despair if you live in these states: All but 2 —Massachusetts and Illinois—have an “expectation of privacy provision” to their all-party laws that courts have ruled does not apply to on-duty police (or anyone in public). In other words, it’s technically legal in those 48 states to openly record on-duty police. (Source: Read more)

President Obama told 60 Minutes that the United States underestimated the strength of the Islamic State before it took over large parts of Syria and Iraq, and overestimated the Iraqi army’s ability to fight the militants.

The U.S. has launched airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria and Iraq, part of an overall plan to roll back the militant group that has threatened the United States and its allies. (Source: Read more)

The Political Agitatorresponse: This is long but it is good! I just posted earlier I don’t hate anyone and this man has been a slave and told his former Master he was not mad with him. Ain’t that something? Took his dignity and family and the brother still won’t mad. Whew!

In this open letter from former slave, abolitionist and writer Frederick Douglass to his former owner, Thomas Auld, Douglass explains his personal journey from slave to free man. In doing so, he examines the nature of freedom and the injustice of slavery, thereby revealing to his former “master” the inability of any man to be master of another. In it, Douglass champions education, hard work and equality. The letter:

To Thomas Auld

September 3d, 1848

Sir:

The long and intimate, though by no means friendly relation which unhappily subsisted between you and myself, leads me to hope that you will easily account for the great liberty which I now take in addressing you in this open and public manner. (Source: Read more)